Big time baiting... should it be legal? And do you consider it hunting?

Blacktail_Slayer

Active Member
Messages
623
I can't believe that it can be OK with the National Forest Service or BLM that people are dumping truckloads of apples all over.
I have heard of guys taking anything from water troughs and other large items and bury them to they are level with the ground on public land (Personal guzzler). Guys even building their own small cabins illegally. It is amazing on what happens on our public lands. There should be a limit of size/quantity.

There is also the 14 day limit with personal property on public land.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,828
Grizz you are worried about the image a handful of hunters and guides do in Utah.
I would dare to bet that if you took a poll of none hunters across America 80 percent would think baiting is the norm.
That is all you see if you watch the Outdoor channel. Look at Outdoor Life and Field and Stream that is what you see and Outdoor Life and Field and Stream is what moms see in Dentist and Doctors offices magazine rack.
Grizz you might want to check I do believe it is legal to bait in Arizona I looked throughout there proclamation and no where did it state it was illegal to hunt over baite and New Mexico the same. I might have missed it so correct me if I am wrong.
Most all states allow baiting on private property. Most of the guys on this thread have said they would support legal baiting on private land.

Why is it ethical to hunt over a baite on private land but not ethical on public?

Again someone tell me how anyone knows that in Utah deer are being shot over baite if everyone is so enbarresed about hunting over baite, so there has never been a picture that proves anyone has hunted over baite.

Arizona

An individual shall not use edible or ingestible sub-
stances to aid in taking big game. The use of edible
or ingestible substances to aid in taking big game is
unlawful when:
a. An individual places edible or ingestible sub-
stances for the purpose of attracting or taking big
game, or
b. An individual knowingly takes big game with the
aid of edible or ingestible substances placed for
the purpose of attracting wildlife to a specific
location.
5. Subsection (A)(4) does not limit Department employ-
ees or Department agents in the performance of their
official duties.
6. For the purposes of subsection (A)(4), edible or
ingestible substances do not include any of the follow-
ing:
a. Water.
b. Salt.
c. Salt-based materials produced and manufactured
for the livestock industry.
d. Nutritional supplements produced and manufac-
tured for the livestock industry and placed during
the course of livestock or agricultural operations.
B. Wildlife taken in violation of this Section is unlawfully
taken.
C. This Section does not apply to any activity allowed under
A.R.S. § 17-302, to an individual acting within the scope of
their official duties as an employee of the state or United
States, or as authorized by the Department.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
Bingo.....but it IS happening.

And when we say truck loads, there are big truck loads sitting in Kanab brought
How could you ever monitor this??
How could you ever monitor this??
Thanks for asking!

In much the same ways we now monitor bear baiting and trapping:
1) Include baiting regulations in codes and guidebooks.
2) Register the sites by GPS.
3) Require baiting permits.
4) Charge site fees
5) Require regular reports
6) Require some sort of online testing like Extended archery.
7) Allow inspections

There may be other ways I missed, but since we already monitor some baiting now, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to do it with big game.
 

elkassassin

Long Time Member
Messages
27,354
Ya!

Register them By GPS!

Then I'll Start Selling a CHUM PILE APP!

LMMFAO!

After 500+ Posts!

There's only 2 certain things We know!

They'll either need to Grow/Import More Apples from KALI!

Or you're gonna BANKRUPT a Bunch of Truck Drivers/Orchards!
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
3,826
It's crazy to me that it appears legal to salt in Az. I saw the little piles of popcorn salt in two places down there last year. Both below the high water line of waterholes, which I don't think is good.
 

Elkslayer2015

Active Member
Messages
351
They did it without baiting..
They also did it without trail cameras and scopes and rangefinders..
78e40ecbe9eaf7238845e327f398cee0.jpg
 

Blacktail_Slayer

Active Member
Messages
623
Thanks for asking!

In much the same ways we now monitor bear baiting and trapping:
1) Include baiting regulations in codes and guidebooks.
2) Register the sites by GPS.
3) Require baiting permits.
4) Charge site fees
5) Require regular reports
6) Require some sort of online testing like Extended archery.
7) Allow inspections

There may be other ways I missed, but since we already monitor some baiting now, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to do it with big game.
I think all guns need to be registered. Charged fees per gun. Allow the government to inspect your gun safe in your house.
 

huntindad4

Very Active Member
Messages
2,034
Ya!

Register them By GPS!

Then I'll Start Selling a CHUM PILE APP!

LMMFAO!

After 500+ Posts!

There's only 2 certain things We know!

They'll either need to Grow/Import More Apples from KALI!

Or you're gonna BANKRUPT a Bunch of Truck Drivers/Orchards!


You think I could get a deer tag for the Pauns, elk?

I could haul a LOT of apples from Kali if there was a tag in it for me....

Bill
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
6,617
wow 6 pages. Longest thread since the new format.

For a subject that is so cut and dry and the government is ready to act and shove it down every one's throats it sure seems like the answers aren't so simple after all.
 

Deerlove

Long Time Member
Messages
5,383
Or the length people will go get it banned when it has zero effect on their hunting! I don't know why you would cringe at the hell it will be to effect "real" restrictions. When you change the rules of the game, you also change how people play it.


It certainly would be interesting polling non-hunters with a list of dislikes about hunting, including baiting and trophy hunting on the list. Which one do you think would be on top?
Elk the antis call ALL hunting "trophy hunting" it drives me crazy!
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
Elk the antis call ALL hunting "trophy hunting" it drives me crazy!

Only they call it "recreational hunting" which is now what it all is since we don't NEED the meat. Labeling/mislabeling is one of the most effective ways of getting things done. We see a lot of it, even on this forum.
 

hossblur

Long Time Member
Messages
5,828
Today, there are approximately 30 million white-tailed deer roaming across America;
-whitetail deer mag


U.S. mule and blacktail deer population at 4 million in 2015 and 4.2 million
-western assoc fish and game


12) Texas: Deer population around 4 million
-whitetail mag


The twists and turns in this tread are dizzying.

Mule deer are not predators. They are not fish, they are not whitetail.

Their main habitat is much different tgsn whitetail main habitat.

Utah is 60% public land, mostly desert, with huge expanses of open range.


If you want to do comparisons you should at least compare mule deer states where baiting is allowed to banned states.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
Today, there are approximately 30 million white-tailed deer roaming across America;
-whitetail deer mag


U.S. mule and blacktail deer population at 4 million in 2015 and 4.2 million
-western assoc fish and game


12) Texas: Deer population around 4 million
-whitetail mag


The twists and turns in this tread are dizzying.

Mule deer are not predators. They are not fish, they are not whitetail.

Their main habitat is much different tgsn whitetail main habitat.

Utah is 60% public land, mostly desert, with huge expanses of open range.


If you want to do comparisons you should at least compare mule deer states where baiting is allowed to banned states.

In what ways do you those comparisons?
- Populations?
- Population trends?
- CWD?
- Hunter success rates?
- Buck to doe ratios?
- Budgets?
- Hunter satisfaction?

Or is it just approval or disapproval of "baiting" as you've chosen to define it which has little to do with the above comparisons.

FWIW, I used fishing, trapping and bear hunting ONLY to point out your mis-use of the word "baiting" in your effort to ban it. Dumping truckloads of apples to draw deer away from their natural areas and routines isn't "baiting" anymore than dumping bucketloads of shrimp overboard for fish is "baiting" in spite of what you or those who do it chose to call it. It's feeding, pure and simple and we both have a right to oppose it, which we apparently do.

I do not, nor ever have dumped a truckload (or even a bucketload) of apples or salt away from a deer or elk's natural area. I hunt waterholes and game trails they are already using and all I'm after is a chance at a clear, close, level, standing, broadside archery shot at a relaxed single animal. If that offends you, then say so and oppose it as baiting, but don't use your definition of baiting to promote banning it. By doing so, you're just as guilty of misleading readers as you claim I am.
 
Last edited:

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
They did it without baiting..
They also did it without trail cameras and scopes and rangefinders..
View attachment 2919
And without freeways.
And without having to draw the tags. (They were OTC and were available the day of the hunt at any sporting goods store.)
And without being limited to a "unit". (They were statewide. No Option #2.)
And without party hunting laws.
And without a one tag limit. (There were numerous opportunities to get as many as 3 deer tags. Most were antlerless, but some were either sex.)
And without a human population of over 3 million.
And without all hunts being limited to 9 days. (Some rifle buck hunts lasted as long as 37 days.)

That picture only tells us 3 men killed 3 bucks and the guns tell us they didn't use scopes. And history tells us they didn't have trail cams or electronic range finders. (Mechanical sliding range finders have been around for at least 30 years, maybe more.)

But that picture doesn't tell us anything about baiting since they hung the deer away from the kill site for the picture. Unless you know the whole story of that picture, you probably ought not make comments otherwise to promote your agenda.
 

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
7,604
I do not, nor ever have dumped a truckload (or even a bucketload) of apples or salt away from a deer or elk's natural area. I hunt waterholes and game trails they are already using and all I'm after is a chance at a clear, close, level, standing, broadside archery shot at a relaxed single animal. If that offends you, then say so and oppose it as baiting, but don't use your definition of baiting to promote banning it. By doing so, you're just as guilty of misleading readers as you claim I am.
[/QUOTE]

Well Sir, then you are a victim.
Your simple and personal baiting techniques have been compromised by public wildlife pimps that seriously abuse the legal right to use bait becauseof the levels they are using it.
Just as my Nightforce turret scopes on my rifles could very well be threatened by people shooting big game at "long range".

"We the people" have compromised our own rights because of greed and popularity.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
I do not, nor ever have dumped a truckload (or even a bucketload) of apples or salt away from a deer or elk's natural area. I hunt waterholes and game trails they are already using and all I'm after is a chance at a clear, close, level, standing, broadside archery shot at a relaxed single animal. If that offends you, then say so and oppose it as baiting, but don't use your definition of baiting to promote banning it. By doing so, you're just as guilty of misleading readers as you claim I am.

Well Sir, then you are a victim.
Your simple and personal baiting techniques have been compromised by public wildlife pimps that seriously abuse the legal right to use bait becauseof the levels they are using it.
Just as my Nightforce turret scopes on my rifles could very well be threatened by people shooting big game at "long range".

"We the people" have compromised our own rights because of greed and popularity.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know I'm a victim in that sense. That's why I've condemned it on my posts and said I'd never support their type of "baiting" and that's why I've tried to get others to see it's feeding, not baiting and that's why I would support adequate regulations on baiting that would stop them from abusing the right to use bait. But I would NEVER support totally banning it either because then I would still remain a victim, but imposed upon me by the actions of those on the other side of the issue.
 

LIK2HNT

Very Active Member
Messages
1,177
Why note every other year go to no scoped rifles and traditional muzzleloaders only. Could probably increase tags those years and still kill less deer. This would give greater opportunity also. Increase hold over for the next year. Whether done state wide or unit by unit.
 

ridgetops

Very Active Member
Messages
1,956
Why note every other year go to no scoped rifles and traditional muzzleloaders only. Could probably increase tags those years and still kill less deer. This would give greater opportunity also. Increase hold over for the next year. Whether done state wide or unit by unit.
Might tag less bucks but probably a lot more will be wounded and the only hold over will be a couple feet over the bucks back.
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,873
We don't know how many were wounded "back in the day".

You sounded like Tri when you posted about the picture but this post here sealed the deal.

We do know that one of the biggest bucks on the Pauns was wounded by a 600+ yard muzzleloader shot last year. Blood and bone was found but the buck was not found.

I hadn't heard that, it's really too bad. As has been said here, they need to rein in muzzleloaders. But instead they're relaxing rules by allowing magnified scopes... totally the wrong direction to go.

Clearly hunters need laws to help prevent their poor ethics from getting the best of them.
 

scopenstalk

Active Member
Messages
288
Im not saying we don’t need regs but the constant here is people are going to make unethical decisions regardless of equipment used.

Before scoped muzzle loaders it was guys taking 250 yard shots with peep sights .......I don’t really care what laws they impose on me I will succeed regardless of regulations on weapons because I practice and take conservative shots. I am not saying that to be cocky just that I don’t care if they change the laws to ban certain weapons or whatever.

Unethical people are going to be unethical with whatever weapon you put in their hands. Im sure someone is going to cry and say “well what you feel unethical is different than me blah blah blah”. Well the Taliban could say the same thing...... at some point it does matter if we are taking low percentage shots.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
6,617
Are they teaching anything about ethics in Utah's hunter education courses? If so what are they teaching?
 
Last edited:

Giddyup

Active Member
Messages
100
IMO, ban baiting and trail cams. What happened to putting time in scouting? How many of these trophies that get killed would ever get seen let alone shot? On my 2019 hunt I ran into multiple people who claimed their guns will shoot 1200 yards. Almost any gun can shoot that far, doesn’t mean the person can shoot that far. I had the unfortunate experience of watching this first hand. We had a buck bedded and were stalking in to get closer, popped up the ridge and was 460 yards from the buck in his bed. Soon as I pulled out my bipod and set my pack down some other hunters started shooting over our heads. 3 shots, lost track of the deer due to finding rocks to hide behind as we were directly in line with them and the deer. After hiking back down we went to where they were shooting from, Jones st a little over 800 yards to where the buck was. They never hit him. I know because I ended up killing him. So my question is just because the gun can shoot that far does that make it ethical to shoot that far? Hell my gun can shoot that far, I know I can’t. Shooting at a deer while hunting is not even close being on a gun range shooting in a controlled environment. Like I said. In my opinion
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
Im not saying we don’t need regs but the constant here is people are going to make unethical decisions regardless of equipment used.

Before scoped muzzle loaders it was guys taking 250 yard shots with peep sights .......I don’t really care what laws they impose on me I will succeed regardless of regulations on weapons because I practice and take conservative shots. I am not saying that to be cocky just that I don’t care if they change the laws to ban certain weapons or whatever.

Unethical people are going to be unethical with whatever weapon you put in their hands. Im sure someone is going to cry and say “well what you feel unethical is different than me blah blah blah”. Well the Taliban could say the same thing...... at some point it does matter if we are taking low percentage shots.

And so now the Taliban, who are killing people, comes up in a forum discussion about ethical ways of killing big game. I wondered how far you would take this to make your points. Now we know!
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
IMO, ban baiting and trail cams. What happened to putting time in scouting? How many of these trophies that get killed would ever get seen let alone shot? On my 2019 hunt I ran into multiple people who claimed their guns will shoot 1200 yards. Almost any gun can shoot that far, doesn’t mean the person can shoot that far. I had the unfortunate experience of watching this first hand. We had a buck bedded and were stalking in to get closer, popped up the ridge and was 460 yards from the buck in his bed. Soon as I pulled out my bipod and set my pack down some other hunters started shooting over our heads. 3 shots, lost track of the deer due to finding rocks to hide behind as we were directly in line with them and the deer. After hiking back down we went to where they were shooting from, Jones st a little over 800 yards to where the buck was. They never hit him. I know because I ended up killing him. So my question is just because the gun can shoot that far does that make it ethical to shoot that far? Hell my gun can shoot that far, I know I can’t. Shooting at a deer while hunting is not even close being on a gun range shooting in a controlled environment. Like I said. In my opinion

I'm sorry you had that happen to you, but I'm glad you were able to eventually take that trophy buck you worked so hard for. Congratulations! And I'm especially thankful you were safe!

Unfortunately, that's a story many of us could relate to! It goes to show that you can't regulate away "stupid" no matter what you ban.

But I have to ask you a question. You started out by writing, "IMO, ban baiting and trail cams. What happened to putting time in scouting? How many of these trophies that get killed would ever get seen let alone shot." Would you please tie your opening remarks to your story? I don't see the connection.
 

Castnshoot

Very Active Member
Messages
1,048
The biology of it — studies have shown that it takes two to four weeks of feeding on a new food source for deer to establish the microorganisms necessary to obtain nutrients from that food. The time and energy it takes to convert to new microorganisms uses precious fat reserves that could have been spared if the deer had fed continually on natural winter browse.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
You sounded like Tri when you posted about the picture but this post here sealed the deal.


- Or maybe I sounded like an experienced member or potential member of enough juries who were told to make their decision based solely on the evidence presented and not on any outside influence or suppositions about the person or persons presenting the evidence. As a lawyer, you probably ought to do the same!

- And FWIW, I ignored Tri several weeks ago (along with a few others) so I have no idea what Tri is saying these days, though I can guess he's still insulting people and trying to turn all hunting into a rich mans sport.


I hadn't heard that, it's really too bad. As has been said here, they need to rein in muzzleloaders. But instead they're relaxing rules by allowing magnified scopes... totally the wrong direction to go.

- I've never bought or used a muzzleloader, but I imagine they come with an owners manual that contains the necessary information required to instruct the owner concerning it's limitations and its use. If anyone ignores that information, it's on them, not the manufacturer. And I suspect that there isn't ONE muzzleloader manufacturer that recommends a 600 yard shot, not matter what size scope you put on it. The shooter was stupid and you can't regulate "stupid" no matter what you ban.

Clearly hunters need laws to help prevent their poor ethics from getting the best of them.

- The rub there is defining "poor" ethics. You choose to define them to include your definition and style of hunting and I choose to define them to include my definition and style of hunting. The irony of this discussion is that we are arguing about an act that has little to nothing to do with the health or populations of the herds. No matter how we choose to kill bucks or bulls, they will eventually die at our hands. And since they do not develop, give birth to, nurse, protect or teach fawns, how they die makes no biological difference.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
The biology of it — studies have shown that it takes two to four weeks of feeding on a new food source for deer to establish the microorganisms necessary to obtain nutrients from that food. The time and energy it takes to convert to new microorganisms uses precious fat reserves that could have been spared if the deer had fed continually on natural winter browse.

Exactly, that's why I don't "feed" them in the winter (or anytime).
 

3TOE

Very Active Member
Messages
1,040
These stupid debates are divisive and only tear us apart. We can't all agree on everything, but nothing good ever comes out of these threads. At the end of the day we are all hunters that are passionate about the same thing. I don't care how you hunt if you are out enjoying it with your friends and family. Baiting, long range guns, trail cams whatever take it all, but shouldn't we all be fighting for what we love to do instead of against each other? It's fun to go back and forth, but it really does none of us any good. In fact it hurts us.

It's not the 50's 60's or 70's or the "good old days" those era's had their issues as well, but the internet and social media BS wasn't around to expose it like it is today. I like to bait because it gives me an opportunity to take my kids out and they get to have close encounters with elk, deer, bear, birds, chipmunks and whatever else comes in while I'm spending quality time with my family in a treestand or blind. I've killed two bears over bait, I have yet to kill an ungulate, but will not hesitate if the chance comes. I have spent hours with my little man watching animals test the wind, circle under our tree, and watching his eyes light up as big as saucers as he watches. I remember hunting bears with my Dad as a kid and had a giant chocolate phase black bear come off the hill to our bait and stand eye to eye with me as I shook like a leaf in my treestand. His nostrils flared, his claws were black and sharp, his beady eyes stared holes through me a mere few feet away. It was awesome, a memory burned into my soul! A long with countless others. I want my kids to have those up close encounters with the animals we love and respect. Baiting is a way for me to introduce them to it, they love it! They don't even care if we kill something, but they will hike their butt off with a load of bait on their little back into a hell hole and be excited to pull the card and see what has been in. I do it for them, I do it to cultivate a father child relationship to pass down the fire.

I'm sure I'll get some smart ass comments on how I'm teaching my kids how to hunt using bait and how it's not ethical blah blah save it for somebody who cares. I don't apologize, I know 2 of my kids already have the passion and fire to HUNT, to KILL, to PROVIDE. When I'm dead my family hunting heritage will live on. My other 2 are too young to understand it yet, but they will. They've learned more sitting in a tree observing wildlife from 10 yards and beating that animals senses than they ever would have from 500-600 yards away looking through a spotting scope. (A lot can be learned from that as well)

This is primarily a rifle driven community, I realize that and I know I may be in the minority give an few exceptions I look up tremendously on this site, but I'm a diehard, purebred bowhunter and always will be. If that offends you you are no friend of mine. It's how I was raised, it's in my blood I couldn't change if I wanted to. I've had the opportunities to creep in on bedded bucks at 13k feet in their bed and slip an arrow through their chest. I've sat for days in a hand dug pit-blind on a waterhole in Colorado waiting for an antelope to get thirsty enough to drink and when he did I killed him, I've belly crawled up to whitetail bucks in the midwest and drilled them in the heart, I've had bull elk bugle in my face just before taking an arrow through their ribs.

I've been blessed with amazing experiences from picking up a bow and arrow that I would never have got any other way. If you have never done it and hunted with it like our ancient ancestors did you are missing out! I love to hunt in any way shape or form, I'm indebted to my Dad and his Dad for teaching me how to be a HUNTER. Don't tell me my way is wrong because it's not your way, we are ONE and of the same, we are all HUNTERS. Let's help each other never forget that!
Well stated BO. I haven’t personally agreed with many of your posts on this subject, but I respect your position. We are ALL one & the same, just with different experiences, learnings from our mentors & opinions on different aspects of hunting.
That isn’t a bad thing...
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
3,826
Trail cams aren't exactly a replacement for time in the field. You can spend plenty of time fooling around with them.

They can make your scouting time much more productive which some consider cheating. I feel like its more an invasion of my privacy.
 

Zwickey

Member
Messages
45
Perhaps YOU don't, feed them during the winter, but the guys hauling in truck loads of apples to keep them in certain areas ARE "feeding" them.
If the deer are eating something all the time then they will already have the digestive enzymes they need. The 2 or 3 weeks to adapt is then a non issue.
 

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
7,604
If the deer are eating something all the time then they will already have the digestive enzymes they need. The 2 or 3 weeks to adapt is then a non issue.
You are completely missing the point......piles of apples dumped in the desert sagebrush country ARE NOT NATURAL.
 

willfrye027

Member
Messages
59
Lots of angst over these master-baiters killing big deer. Why ‘bate when you can get the real deal—spot and stalk??

As many have pointed out, there is no real glory in killing a giant over bait, especially if your guide is doing all the hard work for you. However I don’t see the need to ban baiting. It seems like a personal choice to me. But I am not realistically looking to kill the top 1% buck in a given unit, so I don’t feel as jealous about those deer getting killed over bait. If I drew the pauns I would be pissed about the guides baiting...but even without baiting, I would be pissed about them having 8 guys with radios all over the unit spotting for one old fart client with $$$$. Bottom line the guides are gonna outwork me every time and there’s not much you can do about that.
 

Zwickey

Member
Messages
45
You are completely missing the point......piles of apples dumped in the desert sagebrush country ARE NOT NATURAL.
I think you missed the point of my post. I was responding to cantshoots post 539 that elkfromabove had responded to and then you to him. He brought up a new point about how intoducing a new type of feed is harmfull to the deer because it takes 2 to 4 weeks for them to adapt. I was just pointing out that it is not an issue here. However it can be an issue if the bait "first" gets introduced in late winter or early spring.
 
Last edited:

heartshot

Very Active Member
Messages
2,236
I've read all these post and despite the info from EFA and Bo, I do not like baiting and I think it is time to ban it it.

I think it is unfair to the deer. I also feel bad for the average Joe tag holder that waited 20 years to draw the tag. He hunts to rifle tag dreaming of running in to a monster. Too bad his odds of running into that dream buck is greatly reduced because baiting already led to the demise of a high percentage of the "dream bucks"
 

Bocephus

Active Member
Messages
707
Same question to me with my turret scopes and "long range".
I've never killed an animal over 100 yards with my Lapua/nightforce set up.

You can still go shoot your Lapua anytime you want at targets from miles away if you want, just can't hunt with it. The difference is we aren't lobbying to ban you from hunting with it like you all are.

I think Heartshot just nailed it, you all think there are no big bucks left when the rifle hunt comes around because they have all been killed over bait with arrows prior haha. Serious? C'mon guys I thought it wasn't about "Big" deer???
 

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
7,604
You can still go shoot your Lapua anytime you want at targets from miles away if you want, just can't hunt with it. The difference is we aren't lobbying to ban you from hunting with it like you all are.

I think Heartshot just nailed it, you all think there are no big bucks left when the rifle hunt comes around because they have all been killed over bait with arrows prior haha. Serious? C'mon guys I thought it wasn't about "Big" deer???
I recommend you pay more attention to what people have already stated before you make remarks like this 😁
 

Bocephus

Active Member
Messages
707
There are only a few denying what this is really about. Most can see through the "best for the herd" theory that is trying to be painted. Heartshot's post sums up what this entire thread is about.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
The biology of it — studies have shown that it takes two to four weeks of feeding on a new food source for deer to establish the microorganisms necessary to obtain nutrients from that food. The time and energy it takes to convert to new microorganisms uses precious fat reserves that could have been spared if the deer had fed continually on natural winter browse.

The biology of it----studies have shown that it becomes an issue ONLY IF THE NEW FOOD SOURCE IS THEIR ONLY OR PRIMARY FOOD SOURCE! I hunt in August and September when much of the natural foods are at their peak. Guess what the deer and elk are doing as they come in? And guess what they do as they leave?
I've read all these post and despite the info from EFA and Bo, I do not like baiting and I think it is time to ban it it.

I think it is unfair to the deer. I also feel bad for the average Joe tag holder that waited 20 years to draw the tag. He hunts to rifle tag dreaming of running in to a monster. Too bad his odds of running into that dream buck is greatly reduced because baiting already led to the demise of a high percentage of the "dream bucks"

So, ban it on the LE units!
 

scopenstalk

Active Member
Messages
288
And so now the Taliban, who are killing people, comes up in a forum discussion about ethical ways of killing big game. I wondered how far you would take this to make your points. Now we know!
If that comment offends you, you either have a very thin skin or you don’t understand it.

it’s only meant to illustrate how extreme the spread can be of ethics. No one hunting animals is anywhere close to those people. But any extreme group can make the argument “my ethics are different than yours”.

feel free to respond but I’m not following this thread anymore. And I don’t care to be drawn into an argument if you disagree with me
 
Last edited:

wstrntines

Very Active Member
Messages
1,340
Ya!

Register them By GPS!

Then I'll Start Selling a CHUM PILE APP!

LMMFAO!

After 500+ Posts!

There's only 2 certain things We know!

They'll either need to Grow/Import More Apples from KALI!

Or you're gonna BANKRUPT a Bunch of Truck Drivers/Orchards!

They already have an app for what your speaking of it's called scout to hunt. You pay to look at there TC pics it tells you roughly where they are. Tells you where to camp on a unit. Smart business idea but I don't like it.
 

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
7,604
They already have an app for what your speaking of it's called scout to hunt. You pay to look at there TC pics it tells you roughly where they are. Tells you where to camp on a unit. Smart business idea but I don't like it.
I completely agree......I too saw this company and just shook my head.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
If that comment offends you, you either have a very thin skin or you don’t understand it.

it’s only meant to illustrate how extreme the spread can be of ethics. No one hunting animals is anywhere close to those people. But any extreme group can make the argument “my ethics are different than yours”.

feel free to respond but I’m not following this thread anymore. And I don’t care to be drawn into an argument if you disagree with me

Actually, that comment DID NOT offend me and I don't have thin skin. Additionally, I understood it perfectly and knew exactly what Scopenstalk meant. In fact, that's why I responded as I did. For whatever reason, he did, indeed, go there! I merely acknowledged that.

He's right, ANY group (extreme or otherwise)) can make that "argument" and that what's happening on this thread. The difference I see is that most of those who want to BAN any and all baiting see NO alternatives and aren't even willing to discuss them, let alone adopt them. But they are certainly willing to "argue" about it.

I, and others, have offered and mentioned many alternatives to banning, but for the most part, they are either laughed at, ignored or dismissed with some clever well known cliché. Somehow, they aren't quite good enough for most of you. It's all or nothing, and that's unfortunate!
 

ridgetops

Very Active Member
Messages
1,956
Here's what I think about all this argument about banning baiting.
 

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
7,604
Actually, that comment DID NOT offend me and I don't have thin skin. Additionally, I understood it perfectly and knew exactly what Scopenstalk meant. In fact, that's why I responded as I did. For whatever reason, he did, indeed, go there! I merely acknowledged that.

He's right, ANY group (extreme or otherwise)) can make that "argument" and that what's happening on this thread. The difference I see is that most of those who want to BAN any and all baiting see NO alternatives and aren't even willing to discuss them, let alone adopt them. But they are certainly willing to "argue" about it.

I, and others, have offered and mentioned many alternatives to banning, but for the most part, they are either laughed at, ignored or dismissed with some clever well known cliché. Somehow, they aren't quite good enough for most of you. It's all or nothing, and that's unfortunate!
"All or nothing" is exactly how the DWR works, I know this as fact.

When the baiting issues came up in the MDWG and RAC's, they were pondering compromise ideas, but when it landed on the boards laps, it was "all or nothing" meaning private lands and public lands baiting of big game with the intention of harvesting.
It'll be across the board or nothing at all.
That's how they work, therefore I didn't even entertain your personal ideas, solutions or compromises.....I apologize.
 

elkassassin

Long Time Member
Messages
27,354
We've Got 50 F'N + Changes to make to Help Bring the Deer Herd Back!

We've THRASHED one of The Changes for 560+ Posts!

And Talk about BUTT Hurt!

JUDAS!

I Can't Wait for the other 49 Changes that TARD'S Ain't gonna like!

If It's Left Status Quo!

Mark My Word on it!

2 Points/PISSCUTTERS will become the Trophies!

And TARD'S Will Parade them around Town like they're some GAWD-DAMNED Trophy!
 

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,873
Admittedly I didn't read all 560 post, but I'd love to hear what alternatives were proposed. Private land only? Minerals only? Pounds of bait per year?

I saw a lot more of people trying to distract from the actual conversation by pretending hunting under the apple tree in the "Back 40" would be banned or hunting grandpas alfala field would be banned or bear-baiting would be banned or hunting bears with dogs would be banned or this was somehow related to long-range shooting, etc.... all of which have absolutely nothing do with a proposed baiting ban for big game.

This was people that either don't know (and won't read) the actual baiting laws in other states, or in Utah for other game; or even worse, trying to mislead the uninformed/undecided readers.

Its pretty hard to have a constructive conversation when people are trying to spoil it as fast as the myths can be dispelled.
 

Bocephus

Active Member
Messages
707
Admittedly I didn't read all 560 post, but I'd love to hear what alternatives were proposed. Private land only? Minerals only? Pounds of bait per year?

I saw a lot more of people trying to distract from the actual conversation by pretending hunting under the apple tree in the "Back 40" would be banned or hunting grandpas alfala field would be banned or bear-baiting would be banned or hunting bears with dogs would be banned or this was somehow related to long-range shooting, etc.... all of which have absolutely nothing do with a proposed baiting ban for big game.

This was people that either don't know (and won't read) the actual baiting laws in other states, or in Utah for other game; or even worse, trying to mislead the uninformed/undecided readers.

Its pretty hard to have a constructive conversation when people are trying to spoil it as fast as the myths can be dispelled.
haha that's pot calling the kettle black
 

Bocephus

Active Member
Messages
707
Where you been Grizz? You admit you havent been following the thread, then pop off with your garbage that has been debunked numerous times if you have read the posts. Then question someone's intelligence....keep digging bud, I like it.
 
Last edited:

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,873
Where you been Grizz? You admit you havent been following the thread, then pop off with your garbage that has been debunked numerous times if you have read the posts. Then question someone's inteligence....keep digging bud, I like it.
I never questioned your intelligence, I asked if somebody had something intelligent to say, because your post clearly didn't offer that. Big difference as it was referring to your post, not you personally.

PS. Don't misspell "Intelligence" when trying to defend it.

Go read how many times I've posted here, I've clearly been "following" it. What I said was I didn't read all 560 posts. You still haven't answered my question about proposed alternatives, instead you've resorted to attacking me - which perfectly proves my point.
 

Bocephus

Active Member
Messages
707
Not attacking just responding to your passive aggressive tone. I've stood by my stance from the get go. There is no need to have an alternative when there is no reason to ban it or add more red tape. Thanks for the spell check btw
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
Thanks for asking!

In much the same ways we now monitor bear baiting and trapping:
1) Include baiting regulations in codes and guidebooks.
2) Register the sites by GPS.
3) Require baiting permits.
4) Charge site fees to cover monitoring/enforcement.
5) Require regular reports
6) Require some sort of online testing like Extended archery.
7) Allow inspections

There may be other ways I missed, but since we already monitor some baiting now, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out how to do it with big game.


Grizzly,

I couldn't find my post on alternate ways of "baiting" so I'll just add those and others to this post. Also, note info above about monitoring.

1) Limit the number of sites per hunter (or guide).
2) Limit the locations of the sites to established deer habitat.
3) Limit sites to specific units. General only?
4) Limit sites by seasons per weapon used. Archery only?
5) Regulate type of bait. (Salt, mineralized salt, manufactured wildlife blocks or pellets, apples or other fruits or vegetables, natural food items such as acorns, pine nuts, etc.)
6) Limit the amount per site by volume or weight. (10 lbs in Washington). Per day? Per season?
7) Regulate the size and distribution of the bait. (Single bite size scattered to help prevent disease.) (Pellets, crab apples, berries.)
8) Regulate time of day bait is available. (Daylight hours only per possible predation.)

There may be others I haven't thought of but I think you get the idea. It doesn't have to be all or nothing! And it certainly doesn't have to be like the pictures we see on this thread. My 3 sites certainly aren't!

Many of these possible alternatives are already in place in some western states as well as eastern states.
 
Last edited:

grizzly

Long Time Member
Messages
4,873
Grizzly,

I couldn't find my post on alternate ways of "baiting" so I'll just add those and others to this post. Also, note info above about monitoring.

1) Limit the number of sites per hunter (or guide).
2) Limit the locations of the sites to established deer habitat.
3) Limit sites to specific units. General only?
4) Limit sites by seasons per weapon used. Archery only?
5) Regulate type of bait. (Salt, mineralized salt, manufactured wildlife blocks or pellets, apples or other fruits or vegetables, natural food items such as acorns, pine nuts, etc.)
6) Limit the amount per site by volume or weight. (10 lbs in Washington). Per day? Per season?
7) Regulate the size and distribution of the bait. (Single bite size scattered to help prevent disease.) (Pellets, crab apples, berries.)
8) Regulate time of day bait is available. (Daylight hours only per possible predation.)

There may be others I haven't thought of but I think you get the idea. It doesn't have to be all or nothing! And it certainly doesn't have to be like the pictures we see on this thread. My 3 sites certainly aren't!

Many of these possible alternatives are already in place in some western states as well as eastern states.

EFA, thank you for offering some honest alternatives. It's appreciated.

I don't recall seeing those written here before, but I may have missed them. I'll let you have the last word as I respect honest differences of opinion.
 

Tristate

Long Time Member
Messages
6,617
"I never questioned your intelligence, I asked if somebody had something intelligent to say, because your post clearly didn't offer that. "


"But I said, With all Due Respect".
Ricky Bobby
 

slamdunk

Moderator
Messages
7,604
Grizzly never saw a regulation he didn't like.
Says the guy who wants
Grizzly,

I couldn't find my post on alternate ways of "baiting" so I'll just add those and others to this post. Also, note info above about monitoring.

1) Limit the number of sites per hunter (or guide).
2) Limit the locations of the sites to established deer habitat.
3) Limit sites to specific units. General only?
4) Limit sites by seasons per weapon used. Archery only?
5) Regulate type of bait. (Salt, mineralized salt, manufactured wildlife blocks or pellets, apples or other fruits or vegetables, natural food items such as acorns, pine nuts, etc.)
6) Limit the amount per site by volume or weight. (10 lbs in Washington). Per day? Per season?
7) Regulate the size and distribution of the bait. (Single bite size scattered to help prevent disease.) (Pellets, crab apples, berries.)
8) Regulate time of day bait is available. (Daylight hours only per possible predation.)

There may be others I haven't thought of but I think you get the idea. It doesn't have to be all or nothing! And it certainly doesn't have to be like the pictures we see on this thread. My 3 sites certainly aren't!

Many of these possible alternatives are already in place in some western states as well as eastern states.

Some valid good ideas indeed, but as I pointed out earlier, I know the DNR has an "all or nothing" approach on pretty much everything within reason.

Which brings me to this point-
If we allow SOME baiting for big game as proposed above, who and how can that be policed?
Do we really think certain Outfitters would comply if given that "inch" or would they take a mile?

It's similar to whomever said I could still hunt with my Lapua/Nightforce set up but limits on my range of shooting it for hunting would be lawfully enforced.
 

Bluehair

Long Time Member
Messages
3,826
I put up a battery of trail cameras in my apple trees so I can catch the socialist vandals when they cut them down. I'm a man of action.:sleep:
 
Last edited:

3TOE

Very Active Member
Messages
1,040
I can’t for the life of me figure out why I keep coming back to this thread after reading the same arguments over & over & over. 🤣 But I do...
I respect each & every persons passion & opinion on baiting. If it should be banned, allowed, altered etc... I’ve read good points & perspectives from both sides.
I’ve expressed that for me personally, baiting it’s not my thing. I just won’t do it & that is my position.
There is nothing that has or can be said that will prompt me to go buy a bunch of Granny Smiths & pour them on the ground. Just as nothing myself or the others that dispute baiting will make those in favor of it to stop doing it.
The original thread post had nothing to do with long range shooting, range finders, camo or any other means or tool used in the hunting woods. If you have issues with those things then start a new thread & share your opinions.
3A78AFE1-E4EF-4FFB-83E9-5DF0DAF727A3.png
 

hawkbill

Very Active Member
Messages
1,704
You guys are going to be pissed when apple trees take over the Paunsaugunt and you can’t find your trail cameras
 

wytex

Active Member
Messages
783
1) Maybe not so much so with the apples, though they can provide some needed sugars, but note that I said I used MINERIZED salt and feed blocks. There are several companies that manufacture those items specifically for wildlife and they include many trace minerals (and elements) that the animals need to grow and function normally and those are the only ones I use. I'm sure regulations could be drafted to limit baits to those types. Also, FWIW, I ALWAYS include a mineralized salt block even at the apple sites, but I don't always put apples at the salt sites especially when the salt is used for cattle.

2) With the reduction of available forage areas and the increasing lose of quality forage, the deer aren't doing as well as they could or should be and that's not gonna change! Unless we do more than we are currently doing, eventually, that will reduce the quality and quantity of the herds to a point where hunting has to be drastically limited.

3) You have to remember that mature bucks aren't the only ones using the bait. In fact, nursing does and growing fawns use it much more than the bucks. (The bucks seem to be much more reluctant and distrustful of it.) Many times the fawns have to be moved off of it by their mommies in order to get the drink they came for or move to actual feeding or bedding areas. The bait is just a temporary stop at the candy store. Meanwhile, they are ALL getting some of those trace elements.

4) With another source of those minerals, the deer won't hang around the roads as much and roadkill would decrease.

5) Regulating numbers, locations and timing of sites per hunter and charging bait fees could actually spread out the deer, not concentrate them and could pay for enforcement. The CO's know the locations and don't have to search to find them. And they can drop by whenever they choose (without a warrant, I might add).

6) A 15 to 50 yard shot with a bow (or gun) at a single, standing, broadside, level, relaxed animal you've chosen to take with his (or her) head behind a tree is a much easier and safer shot than some that you've probably taken and recovery is likely to be much easier. Which results in fewer wounded deer.

There are probably other reasons I could think of, but those will have to do for now.

As far as your other question about issues with hunters on my bait sight, I don't care if they hunt there as long as they don't mess it up when they leave. In fact I leave a note in my blind asking them to call me so we could coordinate our schedule if they want to hunt there. Besides, I have other places I can go! AND, since I'm not a trophy hunter, I don't care if they shoot a P & Y or B & C buck or bull. So, the short answer is, no, we're not having issues! A least I'm not!
You can still put all of that out without hunting over it to benefit the animals. Some folks do just that in states that do not allow bairting.
I can't believe that it can be OK with the National Forest Service or BLM that people are dumping truckloads of apples all over.

Sounds like a new business model, selling bait pile coordinates. Wonder how those outfitters would like that, or anyone with a substantial bait pile.
 

elkfromabove

Very Active Member
Messages
1,712
You can still put all of that out without hunting over it to benefit the animals. Some folks do just that in states that do not allow bairting.


Great idea! That way, you can't hunt over it either and that will REALLY benefit the animals.

Sounds like a new business model, selling bait pile coordinates. Wonder how those outfitters would like that, or anyone with a substantial bait pile.

Or guzzlers, newly planted bitterbrush & lop & scatter areas.
Thanks for the idea. I could always use some extra cash.

Edited: Oh, yeah! And cameras, blinds, treestands, water troughs, windmills & cattle salt blocks.
 
Last edited:

bullskin

Very Active Member
Messages
1,061
I am all for making hunting more difficult. I would eliminate bait, game cameras, posses, etc. Not because I believe there is anything inherently wrong with them, but because we could all see a lot more tags if we were willing to "up" the level of difficulty just a bit. In making the hunt more challenging, we could include more hunters in the field (actual hunters, not those going along to push the game past their paying customer, Auntie Em, etc.) Exactly where we should draw the line is a political question that we would probably all disagree over, but our failure to address these sorts of questions to date has slowly driven our tag count lower and lower.
 

elkassassin

Long Time Member
Messages
27,354
We Gonna Make Em or Break Em!

The Price of Apples & Anything else this Year Will be So F'N Expensive You won't even be able to afford Biting in to an Apple yourself!
 

buckhorn

Very Active Member
Messages
2,263
elkassassin
Thanks for reminding me!!!
I better get out and hoard up some apples for this coming hunting season.
 

notdonhunting

Very Active Member
Messages
1,167
We might not have to worry about the apple piles baiting deer or elk anymore. After the Corona virus, the stock market collapse, some experts predicting more than 20 percent unemployment after all this, earth quake and grocery stores empty. Them apple piles might be chumming in pepole instead of deer or elk.
PS
The Angel Moroni trumpet broke and fell.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Top Bottom